Hiro Protagonist

Slaves are not something new to Nigeria. At least according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Human_rights Seems to have a lot of ingrained societal problems. I wouldn't be surprised if parts of Nigeria see it as normal for them. Why you interfere with our normal lives? or something similar. I don't see the success of trying to fix one problem when you have so many (from a western viewpoint).

Speaking of Hitler. Did you know Hitler was into giving Cleveland Steamers? It was either giving it to Eva Braun or one of his nieces. I read it on Wikipedia.

I have a question for you Bruce. How does one independently and with proof, weigh up the atrocities on a scale and see who committed the most atrocities?

Perhaps my memory is faulty, but my memory is that almost all of the important subplots and character arcs in EMPIRE got resolved in RETURN, not in EMPIRE. Han captured - Return Luke's vision quest - never resolved Luke and the Dark Side - Return Han and Leia's romance - Return Lando's betrayal - Return Heck the shocking twist (although I'd rate, say, the end of Chinatown a bit more surprising, for example) is all about "tune in next time..." As I said, it has been awhile since I've seen the film, but I can't think of an important story element in EMPIRE that isn't just left dangling at the end of Empire. To my mind, that's part of the point - ESB was always the one that could most replicate the Flash Gordon serials of yesteryear that Star Wars patterned itself after. I agree with Amentep. A New Hope was a story in itself. It had a beginning, middle and end with celebrations. And left it open with a sequel. Empire felt like a new story. It felt like the first half of that new story. The start of the Han/Leia romance. New characters were introduced. Yoda saying, 'There is another?'. Huh? Who? A lot of new and unresolved questions. They split up at the end. Return finalised those plot points. The romance. We find out who is the other? Those questions are answered. Everyone gets back together. Celebrations ensue. It was similar with the Prequels and used the same formula. The first had a beginning, middle and end with celebrations. And left it open for a sequel which we all knew would come. Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith (set years later) were two parts of the same story, and resolved in the latter.

Almost Human did have a full season. Disappointing to see it cancelled. Not surprising though since they aired the episodes out of order.

Whether you can prove your non-profit organisation is a non-profit organisation is not in dispute. Are you going to ignore the fact that the artist claims Anita Sarkeesian can't prove it herself? That's the issue. You seem to be sidestepping the question. Also, Bruce said they have this problem in South Africa with some non-profit organisations. Just because Finland is tightly regulated, doesn't mean other countries are too. There was also a report with over 1000 non profit organisations in the U.S. that had 'problems' with their organisations. It can be nearly any country, even Australia. So I ask again. If a person can't prove they are non-profit, then are you still going to take their word they are even though they say they can't prove it? 'Just take out word we are. Look, we're registered! That's all you need to know'.

I did read the official statement and a few things don't add up. - We have been in repeated contact with Tammy and have worked diligently to try and resolve this issue since we were first notified that the image in question was, in fact, fan art. This seems to be false as I pointed out. - We did not see her “open letter” blog post until after we had already sent her our first response. Well if Anita was in repeated contact when they were first notified, why would Tammy need to write an open letter? It would never get to that stage. And I could go on. But this is a side issue. You're missing the point Elerond: Anita Sarkeesian cannot provide proof she is a Non Profit Public Benefit Corporation. What should be done with non profit organisations and what does happen aren't always the same. And the fact is Anita Sarkeesian cannot provide proof. That is the point I'm raising. Here's a question for you. Do you think it's okay for someone to register a non-profit organisation, raise funds for their 'cause' and yet are unable to provide proof of what they are doing is non profit. And when you do ask them for proof, they cannot provide it. You are ok with this?

That's nice Elerond, but we already know this in the links I provided. Part of that comes across as PR fluff. Anita says she was in constant contact with the artist when this was first raised. The artist disputes this. "Except that I (and several of your supporters) have tried to contact you to nicely resolve this via your website, Twitter, and even Kickstarter." - Tammy The fact is it took an internet campaign against Anita Sarkeesian to have the artist's artwork removed from Anita's internet campaign. Anita should have just removed the artwork when the artist requested many times for her to do so. It should never have got to the point it did where an artist needs an internet campaign to get Anita Sarkeesian to do something that's right. And creating a non-profit organisation is one thing. Anybody can create one. I can go and create one myself if I wanted to. The fact is if you went to the artists homepage, where I quoted that Anita couldn't prove she was non-profit, you would see that the artist linked the official IRS charity site. So we still have Anita not officially non-profit. Just a dodgy registration which was registered a year after her Kickstarter campaign. And it goes back to what I asked Bruce about views on people who raise money concerning social issues but won't provide proof they are a Non Profit Public Benefit organisation. To this day, Anita can not provide proof she is officially non-profit.

I really haven't been following all of this. I briefly looked over it at the time but generally didn't take an interest tbh. I decided to do a google search on Anita Sarkeesian today due to this thread and found some interesting links. The first link that piqued my interest was the "Anita Sarkeesian Stole my Artwork" Claims Blogger. Quite an interesting read and directs to the bloggers page with an open letter to Anita. The letter is written very well, nice and polite and the artist claims she has contacted Anita but had no response. It seems part of the internet got behind the artist and finally Anita did respond by removing the artists artwork. The artist has this quoted on her home page with the removal. Credit to Anita for doing so. However I found the following quote from the artist a little concerning: I found that interesting that she'll raise money for things like this but won't provide proof concerning non profit. The artist says 'I'd love to take your word for it' which implies Anita is saying this is not for profit, but then won't prove it. And that claim by Anita (her word) doesn't seem credible to be honest. And I don't blame the artist for calling her out on it and asking for proof. I don't see a problem Anita forming a non-profit organisation and have to wonder why she doesn't do so.

Bruce, what's your view on people who raise money concerning social issues but won't provide proof that they are a Non Profit Public Benefit organisation.

Okay, I didn't know you like to take quotes out of context. My response was to highlight that the quote was tongue in cheek and not to be taken seriously as the reviewer actually likes the show. You're actually quoting a humorous quote but you're taking the quote literally. That quote can apply to many box office action films that have overwhelming critical appeal and a reviewer could have used something similar in their positive review. And then for someone to take a small tongue in cheek quote out of a positive review, to take it out of context and use it against that show, movie, reviewer, etc, is quite odd to me. I'm not sure what you mean by they tried to fix it with Season 3. Do you have any links on who or why they tried to fix it? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by linking production values and authenticity. They seem to be two different things to me. Strike Back has the action of Die Hard, The Bourne Identity, and James Bond rolled into a TV series where these two guys go and fight terrorism. I mean seriously, you want authenticity? Does this even happen in real life? And the production values is excellent for a TV series, considering you would see this sort of stuff in movies. I don't know how they keep all this under budget. Oh well, it seems all this is too lowbrow for you.

Oh and Sorophx, that quote was tongue in cheek. I wouldn't be relying on Wikipedia for your information since they cherry picked it. The reviewer who said that said he also likes Strike Back. He also had this to say at the start of his review. "Chris Ryan's Strike Back is terrific stuff." and the paragraph where he says that male fantasy tongue in cheek quote he also says "And me. I quite enjoyed it, I'm embarrassed to say."

Strike Back is awesome. Season 5 will be the final season and hope it'll be as great as the previous seasons. The production values are excellent for a TV series. On the actual subject of the thread, I've been on a western movie kick at the moment and watching a few Clint Eastwood westerns. Watched Hang 'Em High (1968) and The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) on the weekend. Unforgiven could nearly be a sequel to Josey Wales. Even though they're different characters and the movies are not related in any way, the story to both movies fit really well together. Still got a couple more Clint Eastwood westerns to go. Also, good to see a young Clint Eastwood in Hang 'Em High.

Poison Ivy & Two-Face have a baby. The result: http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/03/20/3967676.htm

You said she feels uncomfortable talking about it. She doesn't want to talk about it to you. Respect her decision and her privacy. It sounds like you're not doing it for her, but you're doing this for yourself.

To be honest, I really don't know why it's your concern and why you're pursuing it. She's given you a cue that she's not comfortable talking about it to you. I'd move on and let her come to you, not for you to continually go to her. Especially, making enquiries about her diet. I'd find that very rude.

I'm not having a go at you Bruce. The best thing you can do in an office environment is to listen and not talk about people with others which turns into gossip. This is especially true for supervisor or manager roles. Managers have to keep a lot of secrets. Employees come to managers with their concerns and expect a degree of confidentiality depending on what the concern is. If a manager comes across as someone who's approachable, listens and doesn't gossip, then employees will feel comfortable expressing their concerns. I'm reminded of a quote from the Tom Hanks character in Saving Private Ryan: This is basically what you should do in an office environment. If you have concerns, go up the chain of command. Never down. If a person above you knows, then generally that's where it ends for you. It's out of your hands. Move on. It's up to your superior to do something if they want to. If other people are gossiping, then try and nip it in the bud. If people are talking about someone, don't join in. Depending on the situation, probably best to walk away instead of starting an argument about gossiping. Because, then you get those people offside with you. Don't be the person who others think, 'oh better not tell him, he'll tell the whole office'. Be the person who listens and keeps it to themselves. A confidant. Employees will respect you more and come to you for advice on many issues if they have trust in you. They're confiding in you, not you and three other people that you tell and they don't know about. Let them come to you, to feel comfortable, not for you to pursue them. Otherwise they'll think you're being nosy or pushy.

Police send SMS to stop speeding to driver's mobile phone. police end high-speed chase on St Kilda Rd with text request Do you reckon she got fined for using a mobile phone while driving as well? I call entrapment, if so..

Nine Month Old Pakistani boy charged with attempted murder This has to be the stupidest thing to ever come out of Pakistan in the last few years. And when the baby and his father were in court, instead of having the charges dropped against the baby, he was given bail to appear in court later on. Just looking at the picture of the boy and he is a hardened criminal. You can see it in his baby brown eyes.

This is just normal office chit-chat. I wouldn't read anything in it if she tells you about her family or what she did on the weekend. It's just being civil and breaking the ice. She might like to talk about something in her social life, but it's not a cue that you're now best buddies and can talk about 'anything'. Her being evasive is a cue to mind your own business. She doesn't want to talk about it. Normal social by the office water cooler type discussions (See above about her family or did she have a good weekend)? Yes, she doesn't mind. Personal health related stuff? No. You're prying into her affairs and going behind her back, checking up on her with other staff is really bewildering to be honest. Checking with other staff to see what she eats? That's a new one for me. All that's going to do is get staff gossiping and judging her, what she does, what she eats, etc. You say you're trying to get her away from malicious people in the office but what you're doing is making things worse in the office with all this going behind her back and gossiping about her with other staff. While your intentions may have been good, they're actually going against you and her. How would you feel if someone was being nice and friendly to you and then going behind your back, checking up and talking to other staff, gossiping about what you eat and perhaps 'tsk tsk-ing' you? Some people may think, 'very two-faced' to put it mildly. Her evasiveness should tell you she doesn't want to talk about certain issues with you. As others said, just be a friend at work. Don't talk to other staff about her weight or what she eats. I would not be going behind her back and doing it with other staff and checking up on her, especially with what seems the office staff are now judging her on what she eats.

Wolf of Wall Street. Great movie. Really showed the excesses of the 80s and 90s. And Leo's performance was Oscar worthy. 47 Ronin. I had very low expectations going into this because they changed scenes and re-shot the movie. Surprisingly, both my partner and I liked it. Wouldn't mind seeing the original cut to see how much had been changed.

I would be leaving any advice for your friend to the professionals. She's been to the hospital, probably getting advice on her weight by her doctors. She most likely doesn't want to hear 'more advice' from work colleagues. I know I wouldn't want to hear advice or opinions from work colleagues about medical issues that I might have. Weight has become one of those taboo subjects in recent years where even the slightest mention of someone's weight can get you offside. Mention the problems of smoking to a smoker? Maybe. Do the same for someone who's overweight? I wouldn't go there. Overall, not for me to tell work colleagues how to live their lives.

I don't think the writers care about people pointing out inconsistencies. All they see is Finale is a ratings winner!!! So we must be great writers.

Finale was meh. Next season. I'll just gather up all the episodes and watch it in one hit. They already had met a town of people before in Woodbury with the Governor and know that looks can be deceiving. So why not stake out this place for a day or two? Search the perimeter? Reconnoitre and reconnaissance. See if their friends are there from a distance? Can see people but no friends? Hmm, sounds dodgy. Did they lock them up? Nope, they just waltz in the back entrance as if that's going to surprise them.

Snowpiercer. Really enjoyed it. Felt it went a bit too long. Maybe cut about 15 minutes from it.